Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to both of you for taking the time to join us here today. I found your presentations very informative and insightful.
I take it, very clearly, that the very best interventions, in terms of advancing post-secondary education for native peoples, are really investments in the ECE, K to 12 regime. It occurs to me there are really two realities for native peoples: the reality of federal schools on reserve and those that are off reserve and, I'll say, integrated.
I have a situation in my own riding with Beausoleil First Nation, which is on an island. Through the early childhood years and K to 8 they're at their first nation, and it's a different reality, and then for 9 to 12 they have to leave their community for three months, because of the ice, and board in other non-native homes to go to high school.
You mentioned a lack of information about measuring these kinds of outcomes, but I wonder if you could speak even anecdotally about how those two different streams have created different outcomes for native people. Are there any lessons to be learned from that one stream versus the other, that being on reserve, where it's just native children going through the education system, enriching their culture, as opposed to those who have been in an integrated situation—Métis, non-first nations, natives—and what are the differences in those two outcomes?